The use case seems to be for non open source projects. They want to distribute
their binaries and jars publicly, but keep the sources internal. Not that I
agree with this practice, but I'm guessing that is one reason for these requests.
Eric Redmond wrote:
On 8/21/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
I'm not sure this is something we want to encourage before the patches
are applied. Keeping the sources and javadoc JARs together seems like
a good thing to do. The sources and javadocs located in different
locations doesn't seem to make much sense to me and there's no real
explanation within the report.
I see there are 4 open bugs depending on this feature request:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-231
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSOURCES-20
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAVADOC-142
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MDEPLOY-61
These bugs are just extensions of the same feature request, effectively
these all constitute a single feature: "moving secondary artifacts to an
alternate repository."
This seems to me to be separation for the sake of separation, with no
existing use-case. I'm going to have to side with Jason in this one.
This does not seem only related to javadocs and source jars. What kind
of "real explanation" do you expect for a similar feature request?
IMHO adding a feature does not mean "encouraging" its usage: it simply
means make it possible (you know there are always corner cases when
using maven).
What problems do you see in applying this patch apart the encouragement
issue?
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
